CFD ANALYSIS OF CANCOMBUSTOR FOR

TURBOCHARGER BASED GAS TURBINE

ENGINE APPLICATION
By S.DEEPTHI
09BAE10
INTERNAL GUIDE:
Prof.(Gr.Capt.)S.GOWRISHANKAR

EXTERNAL GUIDE:
G.MUTHUSELVAN

Department Of Aeronautical Engineering,

Kumaraguru College Of Technology,
Coimbatore

OVERVIEW OF THE PRESENTATION

1. INTRODUCTION
2. OBJECTIVES
3. PROBLEM FORMULATION
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5. CONCLUSIONS
6. FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS

INTRODUCTION
The purpose of combustion system of aircraft gas turbine engines is to increase thermal energy
of flowing gas stream by combustion

OBJECTIVES

To get flow field and temperature distribution of designed can combustor at

design conditions.
To get mass flow distribution through each zones of can combustor by Cold
flow CFD analysis.
To understand the effect of swirl angle on temperature distribution of can
combustor by Hot flow CFD analysis.
To understand the effect of fuel injector configuration on the temperature
distribution of can combustor with various injector configurations.

PROBLEM FORMULATION

Combustion
conditions

Values

Inlet Temperature

300 K

Inlet Pressure

129000 pa

Exit Temperature

650 K

Mass Flow Rate (Kg/s)

0.15

Air Fuel Ratio

125

Fuel

Propane

Pattern Factor

0.3

Swirler Configuration image

36

60

Geometry of Can combustor

Meshing of Can combustor

Boundary conditions of analysis

Boundary condition of Cold flow
Inlet:
Outlet:
Turbulence Model:

Pressure Inlet
Pressure Outlet
K- model (Standard)

Boundary condition of Hot flow

Air Inlet:
Fuel Inlet:
Outlet:
Turbulence Model:
Fuel:
Combustion Model:

Mass flow Inlet

Mass flow Inlet
Pressure Outlet
K- model (Standard)
Propane
Non Premixed Model

Non Premixed combustion-Methodology

Fuel and oxidizer enters the reaction zone in distinct streams.
Non-premixed modelling involves the solution of transport equations for one or two
conserved scalars (the mixture fractions)
Species concentrations are derived from the predicted mixture fraction elds instead of
individual transport equation.
Interaction of turbulence and chemistry is accounted for with an assumed-shape Probability
Density Function (PDF).
Thermochemistry calculations are pre-processed and then tabulated for look-up in FLUENT
Non-premixed modelling approach is for turbulent di usion ames with fast chemistry.
Hence it is fast and gives sufficient accuracy for hot flow prediction

Results and Discussions

Cold Flow Analysis

Hot Flow Analysis
Fuel Injector Analysis

Cold Flow CFD analysis

Velocity vector and velocity contour in the range -1 to 1 superimposed

CTRZ

pathlines

Velocity magnitude contour

Comparison with Experimental Results

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

60o Swirler

(60o Swirler)

0.6
0.5

Pressure (Bar)

0.4

Experiment
0.298

CFD
0.243

Mass flow Rate (kg/s) 0.3

1.6

0.314

0.294

0.2

1.8

0.332

0.337

0.1

2.0

0.364

0.378

2.2

0.391

0.417

2.4
2.6

0.415
0.435

0.453
0.491

1.4

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

0
1

CFD analysis
Experiment

1.5

2.5

Inlet Total Pressure (Bar)

36o Swirler
0.5

(36 oSwirler)

0.4

Pressure (Bar)
1.4
1.6
1.8
2.0
2.2
2.4

Experiment
0.297
0.313
0.349
0.366
0.398
0.402

CFD
0.25
0.297
0.339
0.378
0.410
0.453

0.3
Mass flow Rate (kg/s)

CFD analysis
Experiment

0.2
0.1
0
1

1.5

2.5

Inlet Total Pressure (Bar)

Mass Flow Distribution of Can Combustor

% of mass flow rate

Flow in each region

SWIRLER

36

60

8.209

5.112

DOME HOLES

3.863

3.926

LCH_1

4.708

4.847

PZ

8.074

8.348

LCH_2

4.796

4.950

DZ

66.296

67.554

LCH_3

4.262

5.347

36

60

Total Pressure Loss of Can Combustor

1.4
1.6
1.8

2.0

Pressure(Bar)

Pressure loss factor (%)

Mass flow rate (kg/s)

1.4

5.013

0.243

1.6

6.616

0.294

1.8

8.483

0.337

2.0

9.924

0.378

2.2

11.393

0.417

2.4

12.522

0.453

2.6

13.634

0.491
90
85

2.2

80
75
Y Velocity magnitude(m/s)

2.4

70
65
60
55

2.6

50
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Inlet Total Pressure(bar)

Total Pressure Loss of Can Combustor

16
14
12
10
8
Pressure
loss factor(%)
6
4
2
0
1

1.2

1.4

1.6

1.8

2.2

2.4

Inlet Total Pressure (bar)

2.6

2.8

Hot Flow CFD analysis

a) Dome Exit
b) LCH_1
c) Primary
Hole
d) LCH_2
e) Dilution
Hole
f) LCH_3

Mid plane
Temperatur
e contour

Comparison with NASA CEA Program and Experiment

Parameters

NASA

Exit temperature (K)

CO2
H2O
N2
O2

Parameters

CEA

CFD

651.48

648.16

0.0242

0.0236

0.0130

0.0129

0.7492

0.7610

0.2008

0.2026

Experiment

NASA

Results

CFD

CEA

659.7

648.16

651.48

Exit temperature
(K)

Comparison swirler 36o and swirler

60o of CTRZ
Analysis

Mid plane temperature contour for

60 and 36 respectively

36

60

60
Swirl

36

Length

Width

(mm)

(mm)

no

cases

.597

36

80

53.7

1.423

60

108

55.4

Parameters

(L/D)

36

60

0.027

0.017

Mass Flow Rate of Fuel (kg/s)

0.0012

0.0012

F/A actual in primary zone

0.044

0.070

F/A stoich

0.064

0.064

Equivalence ratio in primary zone

0.686

1.089

Mass Flow Rate of Air

through PZ

(kg/s)

Fuel Injector Configuration Analysis

Different
Injector
picture

Radial Velocity (m/s)

Axial Velocity (m/s)

Cases

Radial injection

Axial injection

case 1

0.5x8

-----

429.40

-----

case 2

1x8

-----

108.39

-----

case 3

1x16

-----

54.11

-----

case 4

2x8

-----

27.09

-----

case 5

1x8

2x1

24.02

96

case 6

2x8

2x8+2x3

11.39

11.39

case 7

2x8

2x3

21.67

14.43
18/72

----case 8

-----

2x8+2x3+1x1

Fuel Injector Configuration on Mid plane Temperature distribution

0.5x
8

1x8+2x1

1x8

2x8+2x8+
2x3

1x1
6

2x8+2x3

2x8

2x8+2x3+
1x1

0.5x8 (429
m/s)
1x8 (108.4
m/s)
1x16 (54.1
m/s)
1x8+2x1
(24/96 m/s)
2x8+2x8+2
x3
(11.4/11.4
m/s)
2x8+2x3
(21/14.4
m/s)

2x8 (27.1
m/s)

0.5x8 (429
m/s)
1x8 (108.4
m/s)
1x16 (54.1
m/s)

1x8+2x1
(24/96 m/s)
2x8+2x8+2
x3
(11.4/11.4
m/s)
2x8+2x3
(21/14.4
m/s)

2x8 (27.1
m/s)

CONCLUSIONS
The CFD values are in good agreement with the experiment
as seen in case of cold flow validation for both 36 and 60
swirler cases.
The swirl angle affects not only the CTRZ but also
significantly in the temperature contour and its equivalence
ratio.
Different fuel injector configurations shows that both axial
and radial injection is required for better temperature
distribution i.e., which has the peak shifted inside not to
touch the liner on sides and in the front. Also the
combustion almost ends in primary.
The case chosen for fabrication for the experiment is case 7
i.e., 2x8+2x3.

FUTURE VALIDATION
Hot flow validation is planned to be done on
several fuel injector configurations with 60 swirler.
Also the hot flow for 36 swirler is planned to be
performed for case 7 with 2x8+2x3 hole
configurations.

THANK
YOU